TIEN SHAN ECOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Natural Resource Access Restriction Process Framework

The project component which is the subject of this framework is primarily the reforestation and carbon trading component. The reforestation and carbon trading component will afforest and reforest 13,950 ha of marginal land

-55% by communities and private investors in Aiyl Okmotus (AO) land. Reforestation and afforestation activities on this land will be conducted according to the principles of Social Mobilization which have been developed by ARIS (the Community Development Agency responsible for implementing this component on AO land)

-8% by private investors in State Forest Fund (SFF) land

-37% by State Owned Forest Enterprises or Lezkhozes in State Forest Fund land

This framework describes how the World Bank’s resettlement policy is triggered by this activity, the overall objective of the framework, the justification for the framework, the process pursued during preparation, the process to be pursued during implementation, grievance and conflict resolution mechanisms, and monitoring and evaluation. The access restriction implications of the biodiversity component will be minimal but should a case arise where access is restricted as a result of these components, then the same procedures described in this framework would apply.

Policy Trigger

During the preparation phase of the project it was decided that no land currently classified as pasture or as arable land would qualify for afforestation or reforestation.Instead the focus is exclusively on marginal Lezkhoz or Aiyl Okmotus land which is neither forested, designated for pasture, considered arable, or under a leasing arrangement.

However, it is possible that on both types of land there is informal seasonal (mostly during winter) grazing of livestock. As such, the reforestation and afforestation of this land may restrict access to pasture resources which may form a component of the livelihoods of livestock producers. Thus, even though there is no land acquisition, or displacement of households, because informal access to a natural resource (pasture) may be restricted the World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12) is triggered.

Framework Objective

The objective of this framework is to minimize the risk of conflict between pasture use and forestry and to ensure that no individual or collective livelihood is negatively affected by the project. As such, the primary purpose of this framework will be to describe a participatory process for validating and identifying sites for forestation where there is no possibility of conflict between pasture use and forestry use.

The Justification for a Process Framework

The Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12) is triggered because forestation activities may restrict access to resources such as pasture resources for livestock producers. Project activities will not require or entail any land acquisition and/or physical relocation of people. In addition, the Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation Component does not have the objective of enlarging protected areas, but only to improve the management of existing ones. To address the risk that access to pasture resources will be curtailed, an Access Restriction Process Framework has been prepared.

Good practice has demonstrated that in the case of natural resource access restriction, the objectives of the policy can be better achieved through a participatory process such as the one outlined in this framework. This participatory process is primarily focused on the identification of afforestation and reforestation sites that do not conflict with either formal or informal pasture use. Measures to assist in improvement or restoration of livelihoods will only apply in exceptional circumstances where no alternative sites can be identified.

Process during preparation

During preparation a social assessment was carried in order to

  • Identify the main social, environmental and economic benefits of the project identify possible social and environmental risks for the project
  • Recommend measures to mitigate such risks.

The social assessment was based on a desk study of existing documents and statistics, focus groups and in-depth interviews in nine villages selected for their differing social, ecological, and economic conditions. Among these villages a survey of 275 residents was carried out. This assessment demonstrates that on the whole the project’s impact will be positive, contributing to employment, poverty alleviation, environmental improvement, and improved access to fuel sources.

Nevertheless, some afforestation and reforestation activities on marginal land may have a negative impact on livestock users through restricting their access to seasonal pastures. This was seen as justification for the preparation of a resource access restriction process framework. Another activity to be conducted during preparation is a field study exercise. This exercise will investigate the technical feasibility of the planting on the sites proposed. Part of the exercise was to determine whether or not the land is currently used for pasture.

Process to be followed during Implementation

This process framework describes the criteria and procedures to be followed under the project in order to minimize the risk of project induced restriction of access to seasonal pasture on marginal AO and SFF land. It describes a step-by-step process starting with an information campaign, followed the establishment of Access-Restriction Management Groups, then the participatory validation of sites, followed by the participatory identification of alternative sites and in exceptional circumstances the creation and implementation of measures to assist in improvement or restoration of livelihoods. The Project will explore the application of the ARP Framework provisionally with two pilot AOs, which have been selected by ARIS.

Information Campaign on the likely impact of the Project

This is a comprehensive campaign for all community members describing the main components of the project, the land it is likely to affect, and the potential positive and negative impacts. On AO land, village level information campaigns are already part of the Social Mobilization approach used by ARIS, the agency responsible for implementing this component. On SFF land, a special information campaign will need to be organized either by the State-Owned Enterprise or Lezkhoz responsible for that land throughout the Rayon (using mass media) and in adjoining communities (through consultation meetings).

Establish Access-Restriction Management Groups (ARMGs)

For AO land, the Local Investment Union Executive Committee (LIC) responsible for reviewing and processing micro-projects should also take responsibility for establishing these groups. Such groups should ideally include AO Officials, LIC Officials, Ayil Kinesh Representatives, pasture management committee representatives (when established), Lezkhoz representatives, pasture user union representatives, NGO’s and other civic organizations and vulnerable groups (women / young people). Similar structures should also be established for SFF land. The Leskhoz or State Owned Enterprise should convene these groups jointly with the AO.

Participatory Validation of Sites Selected

For both AO and SFF land, techniques such as participatory resource mapping should be used to validate that the sites selected do not conflict with formal or informal grazing. The outputs of this process needs to be formally documented in a written report (which would include visual aids such as maps) which would be transmitted to the relevant PCU and PIUs. On AO land such techniques will be applied in the early stages of a specially tailored Social Mobilization Process. However, Lezkhoz staff will also benefit from training in these techniques so they can conduct similar exercises on SFF land.

Participatory Identification of alternative sites

If it transpires that there is a conflict between pasture use and plans for afforestation and reforestation the ARMGs for both AO and SFF land should determine whether or not this use occurred before or after the field study exercise conducted during the preparation phase. The field study exercise will represent the cut-off date for identifying project affected persons (PAPs).

If pasture use pre-dates the field study exercise, then every effort should be made to identify alternative plots for afforestation and reforestation where there is no conflict between pasture and forest use. This needs to be a joint exercise between the ARMGs (responsible for participatory resource mapping) and a field study team (to determine the technical feasibility of planting in these new sites). Again, this process needs to be documented in a report format that can be transmitted to the relevant PCU and PIU.

Agree and Implement Measures to assist in improvement or restoration of livelihoods

As a last resort, if there is no alternative sites that can be identified, the ARMGs will have to determine whether or not measures to assist in improvement or restoration of livelihoods will be provided to informal users affected, and what form this assistance should take.This determination of whether or not assistance should be provided and the form it should take should be done in consultation with the relevant Project Coordination Unit and Project Implementation Unit. Measures to assist in improvement or restoration of livelihoods that might be considered as a last resort include the following:

(a)the provision of livestock forage for the duration of the project,

(b)priority status for receiving benefits from the forest e.g. temporary employment, fuelwood, grazing, non-timber forest products.

(c)the provision of forage seeds and fertilizer to improve communal pasture land in proximity to settlements.

(d)the option of leasing alternative pasture sites along in combination with other forms of assistance e.g. the provision of livestock forage, provision of seeds and fertilizer to improve the pasture, as well as priority status in receiving benefits from the newly forested land.

Grievance and Conflict Resolution Mechanism

A pro-active approach should be taken to avoid conflicts before they begin. This might involve (a) widespread disclosure of project information and on the role and responsibilities of the ARMGs (b) clear eligibility criteria for measures to assist in improvement or restoration of livelihoods under the process framework (c) clear terms of reference for the stakeholders involved in the ARMG (d) continued information campaigns on the benefit of the project and the importance of afforestation and reforestation efforts.

If conflicts do arise, the ARMG needs to organize a meeting with the affected party to try and work out a satisfactory solution. If the solution is not satisfactory to the party involved, then the relevant PIU will be responsible for convening and moderating a meeting between the affected party and the members of the ARMG. Both the ARMG and the PIU are obliged to keep records of all decisions made regarding compensation claims and complaints relating to compensation procedures.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of this process framework will be the responsibility of the relevant regional project coordination unit. If necessary, some monitoring and evaluation functions could be contracted out to a third party such as a specialized private firm or non-governmental organization with expertise in this topic (land use, pasture management, sustainable livelihoods).

PIU representatives should conduct visits to a sample of sites selected for afforestation and reforestation in order to determine the level and nature of informal grazing that is taking place prior to project implementation. PIU representatives should also conduct annual consultation meetings in a sample of communities to determine the level of satisfaction at the village level with the implementation of the process framework.

Relevant quantitative data on the process framework (number of persons affected, level of impact, type and amount of compensation provided, duration of compensation) should be communicated to the PIU on a biannual basis. As part of the social mobilization process, village-based participatory monitoring and evaluation is also envisaged, and will play a role in monitoring the implementation of the process framework.